Re: 'git status' is not read-only fs friendly
- From
- Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 9, 2007, 20:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e5bfff550702091235x74e44362gad5b9b6076a5ea53@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vr6szt71j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On 2/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > > > "git status" doesn't "pretend" to write stuff. It really does. > > > > You *can* just use "git-runstatus" instead. That's the command that > > actually does all the heavy lifting. But you can see the difference by > > doing this: > > > > touch Makefile > > git runstatus > > > > vs > > > > touch Makefile > > git status > > > > Notice how the "runstatus" one claims that Makefile is "modified:". That's > > exactly because it doesn't do the index refresh. > > Running refresh internally in runstatus without writing the > result out _might_ be an option, but that would largely be > a hack to only help qgit. >
Yes, I agree.
If I modify qgit in running 'git runstatus' as a fallback in case 'git status' exits with an error (without checking what kind of error exactly) could be an acceptable path or could hide subtle side-effects? I have no the knowledge to answer this by hand.
Thanks Marco